I can guarantee you it's worth a pretty penny! I have one of my dad's old helicopter engineering books signed by Igor Sikorsky. I have that well crypted too.

By the way, the UAF Geophysical Institute still uses paper chart recorders. You'd think that would be all digitized by now, but I guess there's enough of an international community to still demand the dead tree versions.

 

By the way, the UAF Geophysical Institute still uses paper chart recorders. You'd think that would be all digitized by now, but I guess there's enough of an international community to still demand the dead tree versions.

Yes, the old fashioned chart recorders are still in limited use at professional labs.

However, the detailed analysis is exclusively digital. There are still public seismograph displays that use drum recorders because they are nostalgic and mesmerizing and people go to museums to see unique things. There's not much interest in going to a museum to see everything on flat screens and it's more like taking a trip to Circuit City or Walmart.

 

Yes, the old fashioned chart recorders are still in limited use at professional labs.

However, the detailed analysis is exclusively digital. There are still public seismograph displays that use drum recorders because they are nostalgic and mesmerizing and people go to museums to see unique things. There's not much interest in going to a museum to see everything on flat screens and it's more like taking a trip to Circuit City or Walmart.

Speaking of nostalgic and mesmerizing...
this is the telescope steering clock from Mt. Wilson observatory

 

D'ya thing there's room for the both of us?

Sure there is!

But at midnight, you both get off and it is my turn.

Happy New Year.

 

Origin of solar system/universe??. In spite of all the theory and telescopes etc we will NEVER know!

 

Origin of solar system/universe??. In spite of all the theory and telescopes etc we will NEVER know!

There's paradoxical saying "Never say never".

 

Paradoxical sayings aren't proof! I still contend we will NEVER know despite ALL the theories thrown about.
Unless of course we could watch it from The Restaurant At The End of the Universe( al la D. ADams)

 

Opinions are just that though. My opinion is we might, but it is just my opinion.

I prefer experiments.

 

It wasn't Newton, it Einstein that put the limit of the speed of light on everything, including information. It was also Einstein that didn't like the development of quantum physics that allowed for both probabilities and spooky action at a distance. As for quantum entanglement, my studies indicate that two particles have to first be entangled before they can exhibit this spooky action at a distance. And to be entangled, they have to be intimately close to each other. Furthermore, the measurement being made on the two particles is one where the superposition of all states collapses to a singe state, for the first particle, and to the opposite state for the second particle. Why not? They were entangled, conservation of energy, or mass, or momentum, or all of them would perhaps cause them to achieve opposite states, so that's what's measured.
That said, I promise you I do not understand quantum physics.

 

There's paradoxical saying "Never say never".

I have to agree with "never". In order to know (beyond theory) we would have to be there to observe and experience it. That can't happen.

 

Whernever I know, there are two centre of an ellips. Our solar system is also elliptic orbit. And one centre is sun, and another one is jst an imagine.

 

...there are two centre of an ellips.

No 'centers' ... two foci.

 

Whernever I know, there are two centre of an ellips. Our solar system is also elliptic orbit. And one centre is sun, and another one is jst an imagine.

No orbits make a perfect circle.

 

No orbits make a perfect circle.

He never said they did. But, since you mention it, have you assessed every orbiting body in the universe to confirm this assertion?

 

He never said they did. But, since you mention it, have you assessed every orbiting body in the universe to confirm this assertion?

I didn't think it was necessary. I could be wrong. Are any of the planets, comets or meteors in our system perfectly circular?
I didn't see a need for absolute correctness in the comment. Such is an engineer's problem. I can get close enough to make it count.

 

...meteors...

Meteors orbit? I thought the whole point was that they don't!

 

From the wiki on orbital eccentricity:

Neptune's largest moon Triton has an eccentricity of 1.6 × 10−5,[8] the smallest eccentricity of any known body in the Solar System; its orbit is as close to a perfect circle as can be currently measured.

 

Meteors orbit? I thought the whole point was that they don't!

Okay, I'll go with that. No orbit for meteors.

 

I've been doing research and giving some thought about my original question.

When the solar system was being formed, the material universe (the part that contains most of the matter) was much more compact and had a much greater density. There were also a lot more supernova explosions (from massive, but short lived stars) which created an abundance of elements that were scattered throughout a relatively small volume.

These conditions would be more conducive to accretion and the formation galaxies and stellar systems. Today however, the universe has greatly expanded and it has become much less dense. There are much fewer supernova explosions, but only the regions close to the supernova will acquire enough material to form stellar systems. However the remainder of the newly created elements will be scattered throughout the vastness of nowhere.

 

I've been doing research and giving some thought about my original question.

When the solar system was being formed, the material universe (the part that contains most of the matter) was much more compact and had a much greater density. There were also a lot more supernova explosions (from massive, but short lived stars) which created an abundance of elements that were scattered throughout a relatively small volume.

These conditions would be more conducive to accretion and the formation galaxies and stellar systems. Today however, the universe has greatly expanded and it has become much less dense. There are much fewer supernova explosions, but only the regions close to the supernova will acquire enough material to form stellar systems. However the remainder of the newly created elements will be scattered throughout the vastness of nowhere.

I don't know about the timetable of your events. Stars and stuff don't form until long after the dense matter period. Hydrogen forms from less dense stuff.